Sorry Doug, but it seems we'll have to disagree again. To me the lighter part of the upper wall nicely balances the much more intense white of the dogs. I think the graphics are pretty good, but I'm not too sure about the bottom of that black sign up on top.

The sign and its shadow were the primary image I was concentrating on. That was going to be the whole photo. Theres a little bag hanging just the right angle to follow the signs ... The bag and its content is was what stopped me from walking further . Its a concoction of herbs , etc to keep the flies away ..

The bright sun = brought the stark white walls & the shadows out > without the contrast .. I would never had stopped.

There were four of us out > walking with tripods > for about week. I was the only one shooting mainly B&W ..

That's a pretty good photograph too! It's less good, to my eye, though, and not entirely because the dogs aren't there.

I do think photographers in general tend to frame things too tightly these days. They want to get to the subject, they want to make it clear. Also, they want to remove clutter, which is a fine thing.

When you have these great uncluttered open spaces like the wall in your original, I really appreciate when the photograph is allowed to breathe. It's one of the things that separates the good from the great, to me. Of the "great photographs" that I like in the books I have lying around, the ones with large areas of negative space tend to appeal most to me. Large areas of deep shadow, huge skies (blown out or not, I don't care) and giant swathes of stucco walls are all things I appreciate.

It's an interesting alternative, but not nearly as interesting as the whole frame with the dogs. I do like the way the shadow of the sign parallels the lower shadows along the wall. It's the black sign in that position that bugs me. It seems a distraction and it keeps drawing my eye. I'll probably be blown out of the water by Eric and Slobodan for even thinking about something like this, but:

I see what you mean, Russ. Removing the black sign gives a stronger connection to the angles in the bottom of the photo. In my opinion, the sign works with the shadow nicely and gives another detail that in some ways gives structure to the top of the frame.

I like the work you've done processing the white wall. Very bright but just enough detail to make it seem like I'm squinting to see the dogs. Which brings me to area the dogs are in. If the wall is as bright as it is processed, should the area where the dogs are, the sidewalk, and the street be brought down a bit in terms of brightness, or maybe even luminance?

(referencing the original): So many names for the surface, "pretty dogs" I guess the easiest to access...but for me the leap was immediate to other places...the sign itself becoming "hacer orejones" / making dogears...notes, invitations to pause awhile, to contemplate or to be be niggled at to return to look, await the other. Or "hacer la ventana" / watchers / out the window / what windows/ to where.

The forms, their illusions, their shadings, the washes of light, the move to abstactions drawing space, passage of time, openings, ... I cannot know how long the photographer intensely sought the conscious decisions, or if his deeper understanding / connotations of memory, worked the demands of his framing...He could easily have made a pretty picture of pretty dogs and the details, recorded the document, thought nothing of "distractions", named it and walked away.

But here, inside and outside (thank you for the reminder Eric) the frame all the inclusions conscious or no move constantly in an invitation to explore the surface and beyond...and if we wait long enough, how we fit, our connections to the past. These are concepts I ponder often, Edward Weston study helped me there, Steiglitz too, but for me the resonance is with Minor White. I needed him so much earlier in my life sitting high in pine trees, pretending that the sound of wind was sea, trying to sort these questions of what is...

I wrote to a friend yesterday that "the picture in the frame is not a cloud". Today I would add, "though some would name it so."

For me this is an image of the highest order from edge to edge and beyond. My encounter with this image is hung with mysterious simplicity in a way that will paint a glimpse of understanding for my granddaughter who has made the leap through the glass and has begun her own explorations of another atmosphere of landscapes, memories and dreams without needing to understand the wiring...but when she sees that sign on upper edge will have the room to see.

Guess I didn't have the concept of Photoshop ~ back in the days of this photo ...so I had to incorporate all parts to get the whole . Could not think for a moment , that I would be able to remove the sign. The full frame of the door & the full square of the perimeters were in my viewfinder >> then the dogs just walked into the bottom of the frame -- and luckily my cable release was already in hand ...

Good one RSL -- maybe I should consider changing the real sign to = a shade of the shadow tone ( but when you see B&W its all about the Zones of each object in the image...the black sign fell in with the black area inside the door way ...there was tone connection. There was a strong black area, in the image, but only a vertical strength > the black sign filled the horizontal for me .

Hi Jogo, I'm still not sure that what I was suggesting is the right thing to do. I was concerned about what Andrew mentioned, that the shadow without the sign leaves you guessing about where the shadow came from. But since the sun's rays for all intents and purposes are collimated, the sign casting the shadow logically could be high and outside the frame.

Yes, B&W is all about the distribution of masses. From about 1943 until digital came along I shot almost exclusively in grayscale, and I got to the point where I was seeing in B&W. I still prefer it to color, though there are plenty of instances where you simply need color.

I always admired Henri works ... I just worked in 120 so it wasn't as "candid". I used a tripod about 75% of the time .. I just learned to wait until the "moment" happened. I commercially shot 35mm candids all through the late 80's to now. A lot of my candid style images here : are shot with a SWC Hassy ~ because of its smaller size and great depth of field , even at a large f stop .. But you only get 12 shots and had to make everyone count...

Because I was able to use a waist level finder ... I could look anywhere around my scene and the people would never suspect I was aiming at them. Where with a 35mm and a zoom pointed in their direction ..they knew.